Teacher Union Bosses vs. the People of Wisconsin # 1

Teacher Union Bosses vs. the People of Wisconsin # 1

In pursuit of the truth – www.cinopsbegone.com – Saturday, February 19, 2011

This is the first in a series of letters on unions in public education. There is a tragic difference between a union teacher and a professional teacher. The first forces you to join his union; the other does not force you to join his professional teacher organization. I have fought unionism in public education for more than forty years. May I share with you some past letters which may help you understand what is going on in the state of Wisconsin?

To - Westminster School District, Superintendent, and School Board Members: Understanding Unionism in Public Education Memorial Day, 1999

Industrial unionism was never intended for public employees, least of all school teachers. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt would turn over in his grave. I can understand that voluntary unionism is an American as apple pie. Forced unionism is not. Enter the Rodda Act of 1976. This collective bargaining law for union teachers was approved by the California legislature, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, previously vetoed by Gov. Reagan.

What has this law done to public education and the professional non-union school teacher? You decide! The word SCREAAM is a misspelled word. But the initials stand for what the Rodda Act has done to the noble teaching profession and public education in California. Imagine any profession working in an office and having the following legalized albatross around your neck. We can sweet talk and pretend that it is not so. But it is.

What the Rodda Act does is a form of control –muzzling, cloning and politicizing the profession. All this is done for the welfare of the teacher. Where is the student? Strikes are indirectly legalized or threatened. Coercion to join is done directly or indirectly. Rights violation of the individual is obvious. Exclusivity may have some merit. Adversary relationship is legalized and stupid in any teaching environment. Agency Fees is a form of extortion. This one particularly angers me.

You pay for your political and social agenda and I will pay for mine. But don’t force me as condition of my employment to pay for yours. Collective bargaining costs are really less than one-third of the monthly union dues. When I retired in 1986, we did not have agency fees in Westminster. Also, my yearly pay raises were higher under the Winton Act than after unionism in 1976.

Monopoly bargaining and representation may sound good, but not among independent-minded teachers. Fifty-one per cent represent the other 49% whether they like it or not and no payroll deduction of dues for the minority who believe otherwise for their members. Also your are forced to join all three of the organizations, N.E.A., C.T.A. and W.T.A. or local.

For over a hundred years, the N.E.A. and C.T.A. fought the above principles in education. I was a voluntary member of the N.E.A., C.T.A. and W.T.A. (1963-1968). Then they changed their philosophy in the 1960’s. They feared the completion of the American Federation of Teachers which has always been union. Teacher power and a professional union agitator Saul Alinsky came into the scene. Have the above principles enhanced the teaching profession or public education? How would your business operate with these principles?

By any measurement, unionism has been a disaster for public education. I believe that a non-partisan commission studying this matter would arrive at the same conclusion. The children’s education has been short-changed. There must be a set of principles other than unionism that will ennoble the profession & public educ.

George H. Kubeck Mailed the above letter to about 20 newspapers. Published in the L.B. Press Telegram, 6/6/99